r/canadaguns • u/Careful_Passage969 • 14d ago

Application / Regulation advice home defense and Verney-Carron Flash-Ball

Post image

i was wondering with the violence increasing (i am in montreal, people break in houses is increasing) why Verney-Carron Flash-Ball is not allowed?

I check the law and I saw the joules etc but can we decrease the PSI of it? I know they're mostly associated with law enforcement in some countries.

just wondering if a company had release a news for an equivalent.

Edit: for **self-defense**

48 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

64 comments sorted by

View all comments

95

u/Large_Excitement69 14d ago

I think the phrase “home defense” is your answer. Firearms on this country are not for home defense.

28

u/epnk420 14d ago

Exactly nothing firearm related is allowed for “home defence” say that on your PAL and see if you get a license

16

u/PossibleBroccoli 14d ago edited 8d ago

You are legally allowed to use firearms to defend your home if you believe your life is imminent danger, multiple people have in the past and were not charged or had the charges dropped after an investigation was conducted.

Edit: 100 different people seem to think I don’t understand this, so I’ll say it, yes, you are not allowed to buy firearms for the specific purpose of self defence.

41

u/Lumindan 14d ago

multiple people have in the past and were not charged or had the charges dropped after an investigation was conducted.

Plenty of people also got dragged through the system because they did. The process is part of the punishment.

1

u/murd3rsaurus 11d ago

Sort of?

There was definitely vindictive cops, prosecutors, and politicians that wanted to punish people. However our legal system works on precedent, and there's been a number of legal cases that have ended with all charges being thrown out for lethal force being used.

At this stage as long as you don't chase someone down or continue an attack when they're out of the fight charges aren't being filed as often as they were in the past. You'll still need to deal with some law enforcement with an axe to grind but it's not as grey as it used to be.

1

u/PossibleBroccoli 8d ago

Thank you.

14

u/epnk420 14d ago

But you can’t list that as a reason to get your PAL/RPAL…

1

u/CanadAR15 14d ago

There is no purpose question to get either.

5

u/833psz 14d ago

You can use force to defend yourself proportional to the force being used against you. If you use a firearm on an unarmed intruder because you believe your life is in imminent danger you will be charged.

Generally, the only people in Canada who have got off on firearms charges were facing armed intruders.

Be very careful. This country’s judiciary and LE are filled with bleeding hearts. It is a cesspool.

12

u/Sco0basTeVen 14d ago

But you don’t go to Bass Pro and say you are looking for a home defense gun.

3

u/Livid_sumo 14d ago

Yes. But legally you can have them for that purpose.

Under legal definition they were weapons of opportunity that the owners otherwise use for sports shooting.

2

u/Large_Excitement69 14d ago

Right. But you can’t buy or sell for that purpose. So why would this be legal for someone to buy in the government’s eyes?

2

u/Barbarian_818 14d ago

There is an important nuance there. If someone breaks into your home and you happen to have access to a firearm and you can convince a judge that lethal force was "reasonable in the circumstances", you may be acquitted.

Possessing any weapon explicitly for the purpose of self defense is illegal unless you are the one person the police like enough to submit a ATC application on your behalf.

owning or possessing anything, even a Byrna rubber ball launcher for the purpose of self defense is a "purpose dangerous to the public peace". That makes whatever it is a "Prohibited Device".

If you state on your PAL application that you are buying a NR shotgun and say you are getting it for hunting, you're good. If you say you want it for home defense, you're gonna get denied.

If you accidentally tell the cops you kept the shotgun in an unsafe condition in order to make it more ready to hand in the event of a break in, then your self defense claim goes right out the window.

If you went downstairs with your shotgun to confront the intruder, your self defense claim becomes very vulnerable in court.

The legal system and top brass in law enforcement hold the view that any life, even a criminals, is worth more than your TV set or any other asset.

1

u/CanadAR15 14d ago

> There is an important nuance there. If someone breaks into your home and you happen to have access to a firearm and you can convince a judge that lethal force was "reasonable in the circumstances", you may be acquitted.

No. The Crown must prove your actions were unreasonable. You shouldn’t be saying anything.

> Possessing any weapon explicitly for the purpose of self defense is illegal unless you are the one person the police like enough to submit a ATC application on your behalf.

Where does it say that in the criminal code?

1

u/Barbarian_818 14d ago

When you claim self defense, the burden of proof shifts to you. This is to prevent "self defense" becoming a get out of jail card.

Possession for self defense being a "purpose dangerous to public peace" is established through legal precedent. Judges cite Section 88 when doing so.

In theory, this is to prevent a person with malevolent intent from claiming a weapon is for self defense. In practice, well established in legal precedent, that possession of any weapon by anyone other than a military service member, a member of law enforcement in the course of their duties or a civilian who has been granted the (unobtainable) ATC permit is presumed to be possessing it for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

Runkle of the Bailey has a few videos in the subject. The most relevant one is in regards to the Byrna device.

The bottom line is that, while you have the right to self defence, the courts have defined that very narrowly. You cannot possess a weapon with the intent of self or home defence. But if you are attacked in public, you can use whatever is to hand to end the attack. I have a heavy, rather stout, cane that I use as a mobility aid. If I am attacked, I can use that to defend myself. And I can use jo techniques from karate to do so. But an able bodied person has no such legal justification for carrying that cane. Similarly, if you live in an area where you might encounter dangerous wild life or hostile feral animals, you can legally carry pepper spray (aka bear spray) to defend yourself. But someone living in downtown Toronto or other major city can't.

If you are attacked within your own home and you happen to have a weapon at hand, you can use it to defend your life, or the lives of other people at risk within the home but not your property. I can grab a baseball bat and go after a thug in my living room if he is between me and my completely disabled son. But I can't go after him if he's carrying my TV set and is headed for the door.

And a catch there is, if you have time to unlock the trigger lock and load the shotgun, then arguably you were not in immediate threat to life. If you kept it loaded and/or unsecured with a trigger lock or locked case, then you are in violation of the safe storage requirements and can face penalties for that.

2

u/Eldr_Eikthyrnir 14d ago

A person living in Toronto could get dog spray to protect against stray animals though

1

u/Barbarian_818 14d ago

And as long as a cop agrees. There's nothing keeping him from confiscating it, arresting you and charging you with possession of a prohibited weapon.

Then the Crown can decide whether to press the case or not. If he does, you'll have a chance to convince the judge that stray dogs really is a reasonable fear.

If the judge agrees that confrontations with stray dogs in Toronto is a genuine threat and that possession of dog spray is a reasonable tool to deal with that.

If the judge thinks "we don't have packs of feral dogs roaming the streets of Toronto" then carrying pepper spray is unnecessary and hence "unreasonable" and it becomes a prohibited weapon.

2

u/Eldr_Eikthyrnir 14d ago

In that scenario it's more between if they're in a densely populated area such as downtown vs say a park or trail.

-1

u/Reasonable_Hall2346 14d ago

You might be, but you are not allowed to own or posses anything for the purpose of self defense. That nice big stick you picked up on a trail becomes a prohibited weapon if your intention is to protect yourself incase someone jumps you.

3

u/CanadAR15 14d ago

A stick is never a prohibited weapon.

We are allowed weapons within certain limitations such as no concealed weapons and complying with the firearms act and other regulations.

2

u/Reasonable_Hall2346 14d ago

No, you are not allowed to carry anything for the intention of personal defense. If i am carrying something with the sole purpose to defend myself against another person then it is prohibited.